Motion for Leave to Amend
10 Sweet vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Newport Pontoons Motion for Leave to Amend
Plaintiff Monica Sweet moves for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
Proposed SAC
The Proposed SAC adds the general negligence claim inadvertently not included in the operative FAC, reflects the dismissal of Defendant Newport Fun Tours & Rentals, and incorporates the two Doe Defendants who had been previously identified: Krista Keshishian (Doe 4) and Unique Fitness Solutions (Doe 3).
Motions for Leave to Amend
Civil Procedure Code Section 473(a)(1) provides that “[t]he court may . . . in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading . . . .” The court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. (Ibid.)
The court will usually not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. The preferred practice is to “permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings. [Citation omitted.] (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Super. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) Denying a motion for leave to amend based on the validity of a proposed amendment is most appropriate “in cases in which the insufficiency of the proposed amendment is established by controlling precedent and where the insufficiency could not be cured by further appropriate amendment.” (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-81 [disapproved on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Procedural Requirements
A motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be
serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; and (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted/added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted/additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1324(a).) The motion must also be supported by a declaration that specifies: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1324(b).)
Here, Plaintiff complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 3.1324. (See Silverthorne Decl., Ex. C; Not. at pp. 2-5.)
The court finds the proposed SAC will promote resolution of the full dispute between the proper parties.
No later than 10 court days after the hearing, Plaintiff shall file the Proposed SAC, which is attached as Exhibit C to the Silverthorne Declaration.
The court continues the Case Management Conference to December 1, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this Department.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
11 Becker vs. The TENTATIVE RULING: Blow Down, LLC For the reasons set forth below, Defendant The Blow Down, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Partial Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication on the Issue of Punitive Damages is DENIED.
Statement of Law
“The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843; accord, Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 864, 876.)
“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).) “The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if